Michael Rowe believes that even if Dan Cathy were a medieval peddler selling slivers of the One True Cross, he couldn’t be more of a fraud than he is in this instance.

Notably absent from the conservative Christian Sturm und Drang over Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s recent collision with LGBT America (and their increasingly vocal, and visible, straight allies) over his “free speech” to voice his “opinion” is a discussion of the degree to which — from a faith perspective — this Emperor is not only without clothes, but is actually frying his chicken in the nude.

As has been pointed out already in countless enlightened editorials and blog postings elsewhere, this was never about “free speech.” No one was proposing a law to censor Mr. Cathy’s right to his “opinions,” as his followers call funneling millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations whose sole purpose is to maintain LGBT Americans in a second-class social, political, and legal status in the United States, organizations that contribute to consigning gays and lesbians to to an even deadlier fate abroad — to wit, funds to the Family Research Council, which lobbied Congress not to oppose the infamous Ugandan “kill the gays” bill that proposed death sentences for gays and lesbians in that country.

…from a faith perspective, this Emperor is not only without clothes, but is actually frying his chicken in the nude.

The concept of “free speech,” which was designed to keep governments from throwing dissenters into prison to silence them, is never more degraded than it is in cases like these. To people like Mr. Cathy’s followers, the First Amendment is a sort of shapeless, elasticized polyester pant suit that will stretch to accommodate any amount of ugliness, all the while allowing the wearer to claim that he or she is dressed in something at least technically decent.

It seems unlikely that Mr. Cathy’s “free speech” would be something Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin, or Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee would have cared to weigh in on if Chick-fil-A had an overtly racist message, or contributed to anti-Semitic causes. Surely those would theoretically also have been cases of “free speech,” but not popular cases, not ones that would curry political favor with their base voters.

But since LGBT Americans are always expendable to these people, any attacks on their legal or social dignity is fodder for “free speech” posturing.

It’s a classic playground bully’s gambit: pick an apparently vulnerable and unpopular victim, get your fawning gang to watch for teachers, then have at the victim as viciously as possible. If caught, claim that the victim “asked for it” and hope for the best, and they claim that the only real oppressed group in America today are heterosexual Christians, and seem to genuinely believe that if they say it fervently enough, people will be convinced by them.

Over the past week or so, I’ve interacted with some of these people in the comments section of Huffington Post, and elsewhere.

What they all appear to have in common is a type of moronic, simmering frustration, mixed with an equally dull-witted glee, as though they truly believe they are on a crusade for justice. Their posts are often inarticulate and badly spelled. They fall just short of calling opponents of Chick-Fil-A’s bigotry “uppity faggots” but many seem to genuinely see their consumption of greasy, pre-cardiac disease fast food as a strike against the forces of darkness in the name of their American Jesus.

Or do they?

What surprises me (but doesn’t, sadly, at the same time) is the silence from mainstream Christians, at least some of whom must see what a repulsive mockery Dan Cathy and his “chicken-fried Jesus” cult have made of Christ’s actual teachings on love and grace.

Quite apart from the fact that hatred is — or ought to be, at least — inimical with Christianity as it is understood in the red-letter portions of the New Testament (the hard part for these people, the part dealing with love and humility) Dan Cathy has turned his rage-filled version of Christianity into a sort of lucrative branding slogan in the service of his own bottom line. He’s actually making millions from it, and he’s done it cynically, and at the expense of other human beings, then sharing that blood money with others like him, whose mandate isn’t holiness, but hatred, violence, division, and ostracism.

This week, I’ve listened to heartbreaking stories of gay sons and lesbian daughters whose parents have made it a point to inform them that they’d lined up in Wednesday’s blazing heat in order to drop their thirty pieces of silver into Dan Cathy’s coffers at the expense of their own children.

This week, I’ve listened to heartbreaking stories of gay sons and lesbian daughters whose parents have made it a point to inform them that they’d lined up in Wednesday’s blazing heat in order to drop their thirty pieces of silver into Dan Cathy’s coffers at the expense of their own children.

Any decent American Christian should be outraged by stories like those — as should any decent person, especially any parent — but in the same way that their Bible recounts the disciples denying Christ during his arrest and interrogation in order to avoid bringing the wrath of the mob down on their heads, that segment of American Christians have found their own place in this history still being written. Instead of trotting out Leviticus, that perennial Biblical horror story, or the misogyny and patriarchal sexism of Paul, they would do well to look to John 13:35 — “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another,” and ask themselves where they think they fit in, or even if they honestly believe they do.

If Cathy were a medieval peddler selling relics of the saints of disputable authenticity, or slivers of the One True Cross, or the nails he claims were used to crucify the Messiah, he couldn’t be more of a fraud than he is in this instance.

The spectacle this past Wednesday of “Christians” and other, more generic garden-variety anti-gay bigots lining up around the block to “support” Mr. Cathy’s enterprise and to cram their faces with junk food on the specious grounds of “supporting Biblical marriage,” or “supporting free speech,” was a pageant of banal, cheerful deep-fried American hate, unified in bigotry and detestation of a group of their fellow Americans who were different from them, all the while licking grease from their fingers and congratulating themselves on their piety and rectitude and patriotism.

The fact that Chick-fil-A claims to have posted “record” sales on Wednesday doesn’t mean that thousands of Americans waddled into a fast-food joint to deliver a “blow for freedom” or a “blow for Jesus” or “traditional values.” America didn’t get any holier or more “free” last Wednesday. It just got meaner and fatter, and even more rage-filled than it was before Mr. Cathy decided to sell his version of Christianity instead of chicken.

About Michael Rowe

Michael Rowe is an acclaimed novelist, former journalist, and an award-winning essayist. He has lived in Beirut, Havana, Geneva, and Paris. His second novel,Wild Fell, was a finalist for the Shirley Jackson Award. It will appear in French in the autumn of 2016 from Èditions Bragelonne. He welcomes readers at www.michaelrowe.com

I love it when Politics And The Bible Get Into Bed Together ….. and the finger food is great too! P^) Hand me a Crab Pouf – I’ll eat me seafood in spite of Leviticus 11:9, and take me chances with a Jealous God who preaches domestic violence, murder, slavery, matricide, fratricide and even loving your neighbour, which so many have used to justify adultery! I always wonder why some thought it was such a good idea to have a separation of Church And State. I have to say, that from outside of the Goldfish Bowl, this whole deep-fried fiasco… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Mediahound.
Missed the point. It was about political thuggery, punishment for wrongthought by several mayors and, by implication, other units of government.

Richard – as I said “I love it when Politics And The Bible Get Into Bed Together …” It just depends on which one is wearing the trousers, and who is taking the lead for the Horizontal Tango! It can get so S&M, one ties up the other and they struggle in their mutual search for satisfaction, and then hey presto it’s role reversal, with the other on top and the bottom partner wondering how they ended up that way – and how it will all look on camera! I love a particular Futuristic Quote: “When religion and politics travel… Read more »

I’ll be donating a stack (Like a TON) of CFA gift coupons to your SF people. There are hungary homeless people in San Fran. Now, will you dispose of them, or feed the poor?

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Rick

5 years 1 month ago

There is a website (boycottchifila.com) that has articles and traffic going back to Jan 2011. This has obviously been an orchestrated effort within the LGBT community for some time, which is perfectly fine and I entirely support that. My main point from the previous post remains valid. They took a very weak comment out of Baptist Press and some creative interpretation of FRCs lobbying efforts to press the issue. Then a bunch of progressive mayors jumped on the bandwagon and shifted the focus to limiting CFAs business opportunities. In my opinion, they should have waited until Mr Cathy stepped in… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Rick. I think you’re right about the mayors. Most folks–it’s hard to explain the depth of absolute disinterest in SSM most folks have–were annoyed about the mayors. The prospect of punishment by government not for actions but for beliefs was the major issue. If the government can do that to Chik Fil A, what couldn’t they do to folks who know they’ve been labeled and considered bitter clingers? Considering Cathy made an innocuous remark about traditional marriage to an obscure religious pub, the possibility he’d step in it conveniently either as to depth or timing is slim. There are two… Read more »

Regardless of all blame assignment and positioning for, by, at, Christianity; I as a marketing guy have to conclude one big item in my report to the Board: Perception is reality! In consumer marketing, “perception is reality!” If they think you are, you are. If they think you do, you do! If the think you beat your employees with a bull-whip…you ARE a truly evil company. If they think you hate…you do hate. Even if none of the perceived elements of your existence are even slightly true, they may as well be reality. They will never buy nor like your… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Rob.
Couple of points.
“They”, whoever they are, do not believe Christians hate. “they” think that Christians, in order to avoid being thought of as haters, will cave. Problem is, Christians know this is a bogus, manipulative scam.
No reason to cave.
The accusation of “hate” has no clout, no impact, no momentum. Everybody, including the accusers, know it’s a fraud.
It does serve, however, to tell who’s acting in good faith.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Damn. Stuff is awaiting moderation. Then it disappears, then I refill, presuming it’s lost in cyberspace, then it comes back. All about the timing, I guess.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Rob.
Couple of points. “They” who have the perception of Christianity are a very few. In addition, “they” do not have the perception that Christians hate. “They” hope that Christians, faced with a bogus charge of “hate” will cave. “They” know very well it’s a bogus, manipulative scam. What “they” don’t know is that “hate” has as much clout as “racist”, which is to say, none. “Racist” wore out and “hate” never got going.

Rob.
You say “would”, which implies you’re not sure if you’d hate to be a racist. Let’s call that sloppy phrasing.
So if you’d hate to be a racist, don’t be one.
Keep in mind, though, that if you have views which differ from the views of the Progressives, you will be called a racist anyway.
The Progs have apparently been left off the mailing list of “Accusations that make the accused laugh at us.”

RaceISM is a tough define. I can pretty much wrestle anyone through a logic and confession path that would make them say “I did not know that about myself.” Sometimes they will throw a fit, a glass or even a gauntlet. But it happened to me first. Twas a German-born surgeon who saved my life (literally where others failed) who was watching TV news with me in my hospital room one night they were waiting for me to go kaput. He enjoyed that I lived in an all-black neighborhood in Syracuse for one year. He asked; “at the end, were… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Rob. I have no doubt you could mis/re/un/dis define words until you got the unwary into cerebral gridlock. I once argued perpetual motion machines with a guy who made me crazy. Seems he’d had that subject on his HS debate team. Turned me inside out. Didn’t make perpetual motion machines any more plausible. Racism is acting on the doctrine of racialism which is the view that some races are superior and others inferior. That’s it. The rest is bullshit. Manipulative bullshit. Thing is, when you live for any length of time in a place which is, even slightly, different from… Read more »

Michael. In America, you’re right,except for the lobbying Congress thing, and getting SA money for Wahhabist mosques thing (including the doctrine that gays should be executed) and stoning Christians in Dearborn thing. But, as Rick might have said, you’ll still have CFA. Those guys aren’t going to kill you. So far, we’re lucky. Didn’t I tell you that calling someone with whom you disagree a “hate group” is a loser? Thought I did. Then there’s Ft. Hood, the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, , the Jewish Community Center in Seattle, the LAX counter, the Jeepster Jihadi, the two… Read more »

I suppose that when American Muslims start lobbying Congress, or spend millions of dollars funding American hate groups, you’ll see the lines of protest. On the other hand, American Muslims seem to be able to pull of something that American Evangelicals seem unable to: they don’t try to legislate their religion, or interfere with the civil rights of their fellow Americans. The don’t bomb abortion clinics, they don’t try to boycott department stores, they don’t go from house to house banging on people’s doors and ask them if they have “a personal relationship” with Allah, they don’t try to force… Read more »

I hate to break it to you, Rob, but MLK would have been 100% on the side of the gay rights advocates, as his widow, Coretta Scott King, has made clear. He didn’t advocate sitting back and getting run over, legislatively, by bigots.

What ever happened to self-determination, self reliance, balls?!? You didn’t see MLK whining and bitching over one cracker who race-hated. Why does Gay Nation give one flying flip about what a Fastfood owner thinks? Sorry if I’m simple (yes….I am simple), but WTF people?!!? Get over the fact some people just are not ever gonna like you or accept you! I’m pissed that not one corporate benevolence foundation I’ve pitched to won’t give a dime to a start-up Sex Abuse lobbying firm. I’m not gonna go all “occupy” on Staples over it. I thought relying on others for your self-image… Read more »

Rick, I appreciate your thoughtful take on this, sincerely. I have to point out, however, that gays didn’t call a boycott. If you follow the timeline, Cathy did his radio show, then the mayors said what they said, then Mike Huckabee waddled into the fray and urged everyone to come out to Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, which they did, in a loud, ugly herd. The resulting press from that, and all the attendant sound and fury, is what you’re referring to here. If Huckabee had left it alone, probably nothing would have happened, but–like he usually does, especially when Palin, and… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Rick

5 years 1 month ago

I just think the LGBT community chose the wrong time to make their stand. They have been trying to organize a boycott against Chik Fil A since at least Jan 2011. They chose a quote where all he really says is that he supports the biblical definition of a family. Not what they want to hear but hardly newsworthy considering his past. They chose to misrepresent the lobbying efforts of the Family Research Council concerning a congressional resolution denouncing anit-gay laws. All of which would probably have been overlooked until the mayors joined in. This is the critical point that… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Jill. Please document the suppression you mention and describe CFA’s connection. Other than supporting advocacy groups–which is legal and any restriction thereto might be likely to bite the restrictor–CFA is doing nothing more than making a point. It is up to the people who hear them to make up their individual minds about the subject. You might also note that the ACLU is on CFA’s side. I suggested that pretending that objections to somebody’s speech violates his First Amendment rights is a loser. The same can be said of pretending that expressing an opinion is “suppressing”. I expect it feels… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Jill Thurtell

5 years 1 month ago

Here’s why the mayors are right and the defenders of Chick-Fil-A, based solely on the First Amendment, are wrong. The protest against Dan Cathy is because he openly admits, even flaunts, that Chick-Fil-A profits are used to suppress the rights of minorities, specifically the LGBTQ community. There are currently no laws against this. What if those profits were used to suppress the rights of blacks or Jews and he openly admitted it, even flaunted it? There are laws against that so the repercussions against Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A would be far greater than mere boycotts and protests and all of… Read more »

Bonny. All that you say is true but not on point. The point is the threat to penalize CFA due to the views of its CEO.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Rick

5 years 1 month ago

I tried to find any information that would clarify either the FRC or the more publicly reported position and couldn’t find anything of substance after the FRC statement, so I’m included to accept the FRC account. I’m pretty sure if there was evidence to the contrary it would be out there readily accessible. All I really want is an unbiased account of the facts upon which to form my own personal opinion. I do consider the whole FRC platform pretty repugnant, inconsistent with biblical principles they claim to uphold and worthy of shame and belittlement. However, much like police have… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Bonny Buffington

5 years 1 month ago

Amen, Rick. God knows that there HAS been hatred and violence perpetrated against the LGBT community and all of us should condemn such actions, but this is America where it is still OK to hold whatever political and religious views we please In my opinion, that’s what makes this country great – our diversity. At its root, this is a political question – should same-sex couples be afforded the right to enter into the legally recognized civil contract of marriage? Whatever way you believe and say is protected speech and doesn’t mean that anybody hates anyone else. I am totally… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Correction: Bawer and his partner are in Oslo.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Rick

5 years 1 month ago

Unfortunately one of the basic premise of the article is incorrect according to CBS. The Family Research Council did not lobby to kill a bill to denounce Ugandan laws to kill homosexuals but rather to change the language of the bill to something they believed more accurate, specifically, “to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006856-503544.html I personally believe that the christian community would be better served looking at the plank in their own eye where marriage is concerned, but in my opinion this is a manufactured outrage based on… Read more »

Actually, CBS is quoting the FRC’s statement in that piece, not their own research about what was lobbied for by the FRC in Congress.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Michael. Do you have any evidence this was anti-gay instead of a pushback against governmental threats to close or forbid businesses based on the views of the CEO?
The reason it isn’t happening in Europe is that Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago and Mumbles Menino of Boston don’t have any jurisdiction there. There threats threatened no one there. Americans saw the threats differently.
As to how things are going for gays in Europe, see Bruce Bawer, late of Amsterdam and now, iirc, of Stockholm.

Gay bigotry continues to astound me and this morning I come to the crux of my confusion….. I believe that every day we struggle to overcome our hard wired urges. I dwell on a world, tens of thousands of years ago, where biological competition was a zero sum game and “Them” as opposed to “Us” were very real competitors and consequently enemies. So on some level I can understand the rooted tendency towards Racial and Religous distrust. But- Everyone of us has Gay family members- so how can we hate them? If they are “Us” how can we not support… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Michael. Do you have some empirical, objective evidence telling us that the Appreciators were thinking what you claim they were thinking? I mean, when they mentioned things like Rahm Emmanuel threatening the ability of the corp to do business in Chicago because the CEO holds the same view Obama did until May 8 of this year, you heard hate for gays. Okay. But do you have any actual evidence?

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Jill Thurtell

5 years 1 month ago

Well put. As a Christian, here are my two cents. The bible is a history book, just like a U.S. History book. If I fell in the middle of the U.S., opened a U.S. History book in the middle and read a page or two before going outside, I’d probably ask, why are all of these slaves walking around free? You’d explain to me to keep reading. Lincoln came and freed the slaves. The bible is no different. When Jesus came he said over and over, “You have heard it said … But I say to you now … ”… Read more »

You may or may not have noticed that this is an article about a recent pig-out by American evangelicals at a fast-food chicken chain. You may also have noticed a conspicuous absence of such pig-outs in, say, Britain, or France, or Italy, or Canada. You may deduce from that, that gorging on fried chicken as a way to stand up for Jesus and the right to keep gays “in their place” is, at present, an exclusively American phenomenon. Though it’s early yet. Watch CNN Europe for updates.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Kirsten (in MT)

5 years 1 month ago

I’m sorry. Maybe I misunderstood. Your problem isn’t with anti-gay sentiment and action, but rather with the eating of food you don’t like in quantities you don’t approve of? Careful. Your own bigotry might be starting to peek out there.

–by pointing out that this article was about a failed politician who whipped up thousands of bigots to gorge themselves on chicken over the course of one day, for Jesus and in support of “Biblical marriage.” This is, at present, a uniquely American phenomenon.

No need to apologize. Hopefully the context is now clearer to you.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Kirsten (in MT)

5 years 1 month ago

Interesting how you repeatedly brand this as an “American” thing. Last I checked, anti-gay hate speech and hate crimes were not confined to within the borders of the United States. And, no, nobody was proposing a law to censor Mr. Cathy’s opinions. What was proposed by more than one government official was making his right to do business contingent on putting forth only government-approved opinions. To say that is not anti-free speech is to be substantially ignorant of the concept protection of freedom of speech. The First Amendment isn’t there to protect popular opinions about rainbows and puppies. It’s there… Read more »

Until a business has actually been restricted, it’s not only theoretical, but also with the First Amendment rights of the mayors to say what they like. It might be time for you to look up the First Amendment, and actually read it. Maybe even twice.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Kirsten (in MT)

5 years 1 month ago

Not only have I read the First Amendment- more than twice -I work with a non-profit educational organization that has been defended pro bono by the ACLU in free speech matters when a judge restricted distribution of our literature near his courthouse. I’m well familiar with it as people handing out our brochures regularly bump up against government harassment all across the country over exercising their First Amendment rights. Yes, it is theoretical until it is actually restricted. Yes, these public officials have the right to express themselves as well as Mr. Cathy. Those are both irrelevant points with respect… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Michael. The Noble First does not preclude people reacting to others’ speech. It’s all there in the constitution. The mayors spoke, the Appreciators reacted.
Perfectly constitutional.
Pretending that objecting to someone’s speech violates the First Amendment is another technique well past its sell-by date.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Bonny Buffington

5 years 1 month ago

Exactly right, Kristen.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Soullite

5 years 1 month ago

Yes, it is. There is no way such policies would pass constitutional muster on first amendment grounds. You clearly know almost nothing about the first amendment – it actually covers quite a bit more than just the freedom of speech. It also encompasses something called the right to free association, which would most definitely be violated by these actions.

I’m not even sure how you think ‘Sure, you’re ALLOWED to say it. But if you do, the government won’t allow you to do business’ isn’t censorship. That is not a realistic position for anyone to hold at all.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Kirsten (in MT)

5 years 1 month ago

Soullite, if you’re replying to me, which the comment structure does suggest, you need to re-read my comment. We agree that government restricting where a business is allowed to operate based on the comments of its owner is a clear violation of freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

Michael. You missed the point. Several powerful public officials, including the mayors of Boston and Chicago threatened to restrict Chik Fil A’s opportunities to do business there because of the expressed view of CFA’s CEO. The Appreciators, to coin a term were, for the most part, making the point that they were fiercely against the use of government power to punish free speech. If you think it’s about mean, go for it. Probably makes you feel better. Ohby the way. You’ll note that the two cities mentioned above welcome mosques whose views ref gays are considerably more severe than Cathey’s.… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Pattysboi

5 years 1 month ago

@Bonny Buffington:

Your claim that “And PS – calling an organization a “hate group” because they don’t believe in granting marriage rights to same-sex couples is a stretch” is completely offbase.

The so-called “focus on the ‘family'” and “frc” CULTS are indeed hate groups, as they are working to destroy GLBT families. Plain and simple.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Bonny Buffington

5 years 1 month ago

Well said, Mr. Aubrey. Organize a boycott, picket, do whatever you want if you don’t like the way Mr. Cathy spends his money, but the GOVERNMENT can’t take a stand against a person’s personal belief system And PS – calling an organization a “hate group” because they don’t believe in granting marriage rights to same-sex couples is a stretch. I may not agree with them, but at the heart of the issue is that some good, loving people think homosexuality is wrong and they are of the opinion that the civil government should ot confer legitimacy on same sex couples.… Read more »

The government hasn’t taken any stand. The mayors are entirely within their own First Amendment rights to say what they please. When, and if, they take a prosecutable course of action to stop Chick-fil-A, have at it. But in the meantime, it’s bizarre to see all this railing and wailing, and so ironic, since the people screaming the loudest are the ones who would like to see the mayors silenced, the gay protestors silenced, the media silenced for reporting on it. People can call anyone, or any organization, whatever they like. It might be time to pour a nice hot… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 1 month ago

Michael.
The mayors spoke as if in an official capacity. They threatened to use the power of the municipal legal situation to shut down a business or forbid one.
The rest of us thought that justified a response.
Just as you would should a mayor threaten to shut down a Gay Pride event.
Give it up. “Hate” as a manipulative technique never had any momentum to begin with.